psyc of law unit 6.docx

7
Pages

117
Views

Unlock Document

School

University of Guelph

Department

Psychology

Course

PSYC 3020

Professor

Dan Yarmey

Semester

Winter

Description

UNIT 6 - CHILD AS EYEWITNESS & VICTIM
history: early views traced back to Salem witch trials involving children who told
falsehoods and got people executed -- made people skeptical towards the
reliability and accuracy of child testimony (views held for following 300 years)
- negative views were further supported by research done in Europe in early 20th
century which suggested young children were highly susceptible to suggestion
and had difficulty separating fact from fantasy
- research on this issue boomed in the 70s and CECI and BRUCK outlined 4
factors that led to the renewed interest in child witnesses
(1) expert psychological testimony was more acceptable in court room
(2) social scientists interest in research that could be applied to real-world
problems
(3) increasing studies on adult eyewitnesses
(4) the legal community became interested in behavioural science research
regarding child witnesses --> in response to the increasing number of reported
sexual and physical abuse cases where a child was a victim or witness
MARTENSVILLE BABYSITTING CASE: showed how children are highly
suggestible to leading questions and rewards were offered to children for
providing the "right answer" (testimony of expert witness in case) husband and
wife were acquitted but son remained charged
> highlights the challenge of determining when children are recalling accurate
information and when they are fabricating (false claims)
FREE RECALL VS. DIRECT QUESTIONING
> accuracy is comparable to adults when children are asked to report all they can
remember using a free narrative approach -- however children may provide little
info so direct questions or probes are often necessary
> yes/no direct questions or forced-choice questions are particularly problematic
for preschoolers
> study by WATERMAN, BLADES, SPENCER showed that children were more
likely to answer accurately when asked "wh" questions as opposed to yes/no
questions; this is because yes/no questions rely on recognition memory as
opposed to recall which increases the likelihood for error
WHY ARE CHILDREN MORE SUGGESTIBLE THAN ADULTS?
> social characteristics of the interview which can influence the way children
respond to the interviewer; can produce social compliance (do what you think the
interviewer wants you to do) and social pressure to trust and cooperate with the
adult interviewer
- illustrated in study by HUGHES/GRIEVE which had children answer yes/no
illogical questions that should be answered with "I don'k know" -- many of the children answered yes or no despite the fact that there was no answer
> changes to the cognitive system show that there are differences in the way
children vs adults encode, store and retrieve memories, differences in terms of
forgetting and retention, and children "misattribute" where information comes
from (e.g. someone suggests an event occurred and the child report the
"suggestion" believing that it did occur)
anatomically detailed dolls: a doll, sometimes like a rag doll, that is consistent
with the male or female anatomy; it is used when a child may have difficulty
verbally describing the event they experienced or witnessed so the dolls provide
a prop for them to demonstrate what occurred
> research is controversial surrounding the validity of using these dolls (pg. 152)
> usually used with child sexual abuse victims
> debate over whether these should be used as there are no specific guidelines
for the manufacturers of the dolls, no standard procedures for scoring behaviours
children exhibit while using them, and we don't know whether there is a
difference between the way abused/non-abused children play with the dolls
criterion-based content analysis (CBCA): analysis that uses criteria to
distinguish truthful from false statements made by children; developed in
Germany by Udo Undeutsh and is now part of a more comprehensive protocol
called statement validity analysis (SVA)
statement validity analysis (SVA): a comprehensive protocol to distinguish
truthful or false statements made by children and contains 3 parts
(1) structured interview of the child witness/victim
(2) a systematic analysis of the verbal content of the child's statement by using
the CBCA (consisting of 3 sub categories with 18 criteria- general characteristics
of child's claims, specific content and motivation-related contents)
(3) the application of a statement validity check-list
> it is assumed that true events are more likely to contain the CBCA criteria than
fabricated events
> criticisms of the CBCA are the inconsistencies with the amount of criteria that
needs to be present to conclude truthfulness, research showing that age of
interviewee is positively correlated with scores (younger children do not have
cognitive ability to provide as many details as older children) & the scores given
are highly subjective and does not ensure inter-rater reliability
> these methods are used in Europe to assess child and adult statements for
truthfulness
step-wise interview -- procedure used in Canada: interview protocol with a
series of "steps" designed to start the interview with the least leading and
directive type of questioning, and then proceed to more specific forms of
questioning when necessary (i.e. to seek an elaboration from the child based on details they provided during free recall/narrative)
> steps (9) -- (1) rapport building, (2) recall of 1 or 2 non-abusive events, (3)
provide child with an explanation of truth, (4) introduce the critical topic by asking
child if they know why they are here, (5) free-narrative, (6) general questions, (7)
specific questions if necessary, (8) interview aids (pictures, dolls) if necessary,
(9) conclude by thanking child explain what will happen next
> study done comparing modified structured interview (similar to SWI but specific
questions are asked using "wh" questions), with step-wise and Action for Child
Protection procedure using doll play -- A for C was least effective and modified
and SWI were comparable (modified better for where questions)
narrative elaboration: developed in US; it is an interview procedure whereby
children learn to organize their story into relevant categories -- participants,
settings, actions, conversation/affective states, and consequences -- cards
are given to children representing each category and serve as visual cues to help
the child remember to state all they can - child practices with cue cards telling
neutral stories firsts to learn how to use them and then uses them to describe
event
> study done to illustrate effectiveness of cue cards + instruction (i.e narrative
elaboration) and showed that children in the N.E. group reported more accurate
information but not more inaccurate information & mental reinstatement has no
effect on accuracy
National Institute of Child Health and Human Development (NICHD)
Interview Protocol
> developed by Dr. Michael Lamb and is an interviewing procedure that relies on
open-ended questioning with 2 types of prompts available to the interviewer
(1) time prompts -- asking what happened next?
(2) cue question prompts -- details that the child has reported are used in the
question and children are asked to elaborate on it
- also addresses how to introduce topic / rapport building -- similar to step-wise
interview but less structured
false memory syndrome: term to describe clients' false beliefs that they were
sexually abused as children, having no memories of this abuse until they enter
therapy to deal with some other psychological problem, such as depression or
substance abuse
recovered memories: term for sexual abuse memories that are so traumatic
individuals repress them in their unconscious -- it is only as adults and with the
help of therapy that these individuals are able to recall the abuse
> controversial issue because some psychologists do not believe these
memories exist and only come about through suggest